Post by messi05 on Jan 24, 2024 7:18:41 GMT
Article 85, paragraph 11, of the Code of Civil Procedure, says that the court must take into account the additional work of the lawyer to arbitrate the fees. But the 23rd Civil Chamber of the Rio Grande do Sul Court of Justice decided to double a lawyer's appeal fees without her having presented counter-reasons to the opposing party's appeal. The decision was made in a compensation action filed by an elderly person against a financial administrator. The issue is new, as it arises from the CPC that came into force in March 2016, but it is already controversial. Lawyers point out that Rio Grande do Sul TJ judges do not usually increase fees without "recourse compensation".
But jurisprudence is changing. In May 2017, the Buy Phone Number List Plenary of the Federal Supreme Court, when judging a regulatory appeal in an original action, decided to set appeal fees regardless of the presentation of counter-arguments or counter-minutes by the lawyer. According to the decision, the rule in paragraph 11 of article 85 of the CPC aims to prevent the repeated presentation of appeals, and not to increase the lawyer's remuneration as a result of the performance of the opposing party's professional.
In that judgment, Minister Luiz Fux, author of the winning vote, stated that the expression "additional work", contained in the aforementioned legal provision, is a genre of which counter-minutes and counter-reasons are only species. According to the unsuccessful understanding, the fees would not be due, because there would have been inertia on the part of the appellant in offering a counter draft to the internal appeal and, in the absence of this, it would not be possible to increase the legal fees already fixed. The STF ruling has not yet been published.
But jurisprudence is changing. In May 2017, the Buy Phone Number List Plenary of the Federal Supreme Court, when judging a regulatory appeal in an original action, decided to set appeal fees regardless of the presentation of counter-arguments or counter-minutes by the lawyer. According to the decision, the rule in paragraph 11 of article 85 of the CPC aims to prevent the repeated presentation of appeals, and not to increase the lawyer's remuneration as a result of the performance of the opposing party's professional.
In that judgment, Minister Luiz Fux, author of the winning vote, stated that the expression "additional work", contained in the aforementioned legal provision, is a genre of which counter-minutes and counter-reasons are only species. According to the unsuccessful understanding, the fees would not be due, because there would have been inertia on the part of the appellant in offering a counter draft to the internal appeal and, in the absence of this, it would not be possible to increase the legal fees already fixed. The STF ruling has not yet been published.